Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 21:27:45 -0500 From: "Josh Paetzel" <jpaetzel@hutchtel.net> To: "R Joseph Wright" <rjoseph@mammalia.org> Cc: <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: amd k6-2 550 vs p2 300 Message-ID: <NEBBIJCLELPGBFNNJOFHAEMICDAA.jpaetzel@hutchtel.net> In-Reply-To: <20000703171943.A96459@manatee.mammalia.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG > [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of R Joseph Wright > Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 7:20 PM > To: Josh Paetzel > Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG > Subject: Re: amd k6-2 550 vs p2 300 > > > On Mon, Jul 03, 2000 at 02:21:52PM -0500, Josh Paetzel wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: generic [mailto:generic]On Behalf Of Generic Player > > > Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 1:26 PM > > > To: Josh Paetzel; questions@freebsd.org > > > Subject: Re: amd k6-2 550 vs p2 300 > > > > > > > > > > As I indicated, games are the only benchmark I am interested > > > in. I should > > > > add that UT is the primary game that I play. > > > > > > > > > > Then why were you using some stupid little benchmark program > instead of > > > UT? You claimed you were seeing a "real world benchmark" > results from a > > > specific program written for intel chips. > > > > I you would read my messages a little more closely. What I > said was, "maybe > > you are seeing the results of a real-world benchmark." What I > meant by that > > was, if windows is faster at something, isn't that a real world > benchmark > > telling you that it is faster? > > > > > > Real world benchmarks would > > > be starting up a UT demo and seeing what framerates you get. > > > > > > > Right....and my p2 is faster than aforementioned K6-2. > > > > > > For the things that I do with FBSD I don't see alot of > > > difference between a > > > > K6-2 and a P2, either. But then, I don't see much > difference between a > > > > classic pentium 100 and a P3-600, either. Most of the things I > > > do with FBSD > > > > put very little load on the CPU. Mostly I see the disk > > > subsystem and the > > > > memory subsystem being worked. > > > > > > > > For instance, I have the old www.stomped.com web server sitting > > > here, and > > > > its a K6-233. (stuffed with RAM, though) I didn't get the > > > disks, but I bet > > > > they weren't 5400 rpm IDEs. ;) > > > > > > > Compile times on Freebsd are not noticably different between AMD and > > > Intel chips, they are on windows. Quake 3 framerates are only 5 fps > > > different for me in freebsd vs 17 in windows. > > > > > > > Windows IS a resource hog, and it does use a lot more CPU time > > > than FBSD. > > > > Maybe that is why you notice a big difference in performance > > > between OSs. I > > > > have little love for M$crosoft, but I find it hard to > believe that they > > > > deliberately mangle the OS to run slower on a specific chip. > > > > > > > > Josh > > > > > > Its not a matter of mangling anything, its that they highly > optimize it > > > for Intel chips, and don't bother to do anything for AMD > chips. I don't > > > hate MS, I'm just telling you there is a noticable difference running > > > AMD vs Intel on windows compared to any other OS. > > > > > > And I think you are in fact getting confused about the cache issue. > > > Socket designs do not allow for off die cache unless it is located on > > > the motherboard. There is simply no other place for it. The > only cache > > > running at 100 MHz is on your motherboard. Any on die cache runs full > > > speed. > > > > Exactly...that is why K6-2 L2 cache runs at 100mghz and P2 > cache runs at 1/2 > > core speed. > > And only intel is going back to socket 370, AMD uses super > > > socket 7 and socket A. That's why k-6 III's were > outperforming the old > > > Xeons in cache intensive apps, it still has on on die cache > at full core > > > speed, where as slot xeons have off die cache. > > > > > > > So now we are talking about K6-3s? I suppose those are way > faster than P3s, > > too. :) > > http:www1.amd.com/products/cpg/result/1,1265,184,00.html > > If it's true what they say, why haven't they developed it further > to be more > competitive? > > hmmm...that link is broken for me, so I don't know what it has to say. I have played around with the "aftermarket" chips from time to time and I always seem to come back to Intel. Intel processors always seem to cost a bit more than the competition, but Intel ususally finds a way to make them faster. (Yes, sometimes it is by Gorillaing developers into using their special instructions) I guess this thread has gotten away from us a little. I am willing to say that it is possible for a k6-2 550 to be faster than as p2-300 in some applications. I am confident, though, that a p2 is faster than a k6-2 of equal clock speed due to the superior architecture of the p2. Anyone who wished to argue further with me on this will have to come to Paetzel labs in Minnesota to convince me. (Prepare to be smoked in Unreal Tournament) Send email for directions. Josh > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?NEBBIJCLELPGBFNNJOFHAEMICDAA.jpaetzel>